I do try to watch MSNBC and Fox News in order to get my fair and balance does of propaganda, but I was a little surprise this morning when all MSNBC wanted to talk about was the stupid binders thing (which is an internet joke, not something newsworthy) and Fox was talking about how the guy for the Libya attack may now be known. Has CNN or MSNBC covered that yet? I know they both are left wing news organizations, but I would've thought something like that would be important enough for them to cover. Surely they're not being that overprotective of the President._________________
"I believe toys resonate with us as humans, we can hold them them, it's tactile, real! They are totems for our extended beliefs and imaginations. A fetish for ideas that hold as much interest and passion as old religious relics for some. We display them in our homes. They show who we are. They are signals for similar thinking people. A way we connect with each other...and I guess thats why I do toys. That connection." -Ashley Wood

Posted: Fri Oct 19, 2012 11:17 am

Message

Darth_HenningMaster

Joined: 12 Apr 2011Posts: 534Location: Canada

Taral-DLOS wrote:

Do any of my fellow Canadians on the board remember the Robocalls incident last election?

That's what this US election needs. Robocalls.

For those who don't know: in the last Canadian federal election, there were thousands of cases, on the parts of at least the two main parties, where automated systems called homes to inform them of where they should vote, but gave the wrong information. Some of it was accidental, some was actual fraud. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robocall_scandal

I don't think many of us could forget the uproar over that.

I personally doubt that the higher-ups in either main party would have sanctioned that, simply because if it ever came to light they'd have their rears handed to them in the coming election (see Mulroney or Adscam).

That said, whether a smaller group within each party was deliberately responsible, it was accidental, or someone not associated with any party who wanted to cause turmoil, is responsible, I doubt we'll ever know.

Honestly, I'm more curious to see how the coronation of Trudeau Jr. plays out. The latest Nanos poll shows a rather improbably spike in liberal support (5.5% nationally, 13% ontario, and 20% BC). I'm curious if that really is the effect of Trudeau, or a sampling error.

While all of those are really extreme, we all know what happened with the Bloc and NDP in Quebec last year so...

Conservatives still lead or are statistically tied everywhere except Quebec though, but are back in minority territory.

I personally doubt that the higher-ups in either main party would have sanctioned that, simply because if it ever came to light they'd have their rears handed to them in the coming election (see Mulroney or Adscam).

Well, nothing would surprise me. In the '70s an inept bunch of burglars ended up bringing down the administration here in the States. The coverup reached all the way to the Oval office.

The coverup reached all the way to the Oval office. Little thing called Watergate.

We can only hope 'Libyagate' brings down our current corrupt administration. The intelligence community had evidence that there was a terrorist attack carried out my militants, not protesters, within 24 hours after the incident. And the Obama administration spent nearly the next two weeks telling everyone it was a protest about a YouTube video that got out of hand. He further pushed this lie at the UN! And furthermore, the Obama administration lied about denying embassy security requests!

Especially after incidents like Watergate, there is zero doubt that these cover-ups reach the Oval office.

-

Posted: Fri Oct 19, 2012 1:12 pm

Message

AutobonMaster

Joined: 17 Apr 2008Posts: 751Location: Seattle, Washington

-

In response to my earlier frustration about the democrats going insane over Romney's irrelevant "binders full of women" comment, I now have to point out how hypocritical the Republicans are behaving.

If you are following the news cycle today, Obama is getting absolutely ripped to shreds over his comment about the four American deaths in Libya not being "optimal." (not on MSNBC, though, since they would never post anything against Obama) If you actually watch the Daily Show episode in which Obama makes this comment, it is not at all inappropriate - in context. He meant no disrespect.

I just find it sad that our society relies on soundbites to score political points - both sides are guilty. We need to focus on real issues.

-

Posted: Fri Oct 19, 2012 1:34 pm

Message

DancelittleewokEUC Staff

Joined: 15 Sep 2010Posts: 1170Location: Kansas

Darth Skuldren wrote:

I do try to watch MSNBC and Fox News in order to get my fair and balance does of propaganda, but I was a little surprise this morning when all MSNBC wanted to talk about was the stupid binders thing (which is an internet joke, not something newsworthy) and Fox was talking about how the guy for the Libya attack may now be known. Has CNN or MSNBC covered that yet? I know they both are left wing news organizations, but I would've thought something like that would be important enough for them to cover. Surely they're not being that overprotective of the President.

Before the debate, Meet the Press covered Libya. Anderson Cooper has a "Keeping Them Honest" segment on his show. He'll address any issue no matter what the party. While I haven't watched CNN in awhile, I bet it was covered. All MSNBC shows covered the binder comment as well as Libya parts of the debate. Why FOX persists in saying that the mainstream media is ignoring Libya is beyond me._________________Observation: Life would be cooler if everyone spoke like HK-47.

Also, with the Libya thing, it's not a matter of corruption, but incompetence, as far as the administration would be concerned._________________
"I believe toys resonate with us as humans, we can hold them them, it's tactile, real! They are totems for our extended beliefs and imaginations. A fetish for ideas that hold as much interest and passion as old religious relics for some. We display them in our homes. They show who we are. They are signals for similar thinking people. A way we connect with each other...and I guess thats why I do toys. That connection." -Ashley Wood

Posted: Fri Oct 19, 2012 3:15 pm

Message

CerrineaMaster

Joined: 09 Jun 2009Posts: 1491

Idk how justified the charge of incompetence is considering it was the Republican vote in congress that cut the budget for embassy defense.

Also, with the Libya thing, it's not a matter of corruption, but incompetence, as far as the administration would be concerned.

It is both corruption and incompetence. Our intelligence agencies are testifying that they never suggested anything about a video or protest. They had evidence of what really happened less then a day after the attacks. Regardless of this, Obama and his administration spent the next week and a half telling Americans and UN officials that the attack on our embassy was due to a protest about a video on YouTube - a video no one ever saw or heard about.

There are emails of the administration denying security to our Libyan embassy multiple times. In fact, our embassy was bombed twice, prior to the attack that killed four of our citizens. And yet despite warning of an imminent attack, our government did nothing to prevent what happened on the anniversary of 9/11.

The administration lying to everyone with full knowledge of the truth is corruption. The inability to protect American lives is incompetence. Oh, and failing so badly with a cover-up could count as well.

And then Obama had the nerve to feign righteous indignation in the last debate - “And the suggestion that anybody in my team, whether the secretary of state, our U.N. ambassador, anybody on my team would play politics or mislead when we’ve lost four of our own, governor, is offensive.”

We need a new president and administration.

-

Posted: Fri Oct 19, 2012 4:51 pm

Message

CerrineaMaster

Joined: 09 Jun 2009Posts: 1491

Quote:

The inability to protect American lives is incompetence.

Like the incompetent administration that got 241 Americans killed in a bombing in Beirut? Which is a seminal event on the timeline to 9/11.

There isn't a single administration that hasn't screwed up when it comes to terrorism. To label them corrupt is divisive and seriously undeserved. I don't for one minute think Regan was corrupt because the ball was dropped on his watch. I don't believe this of any president, no matter what their party affiliation. I think presidents take their position as leader of the nation very seriously no matter what party they belong to.

If a Republican was sitting in the White House right now, and did the exact same thing as the Obama administration has done, you would not be charging them with corruption._________________Roqoo Depot co-founder.

Posted: Fri Oct 19, 2012 6:02 pm

Message

AutobonMaster

Joined: 17 Apr 2008Posts: 751Location: Seattle, Washington

Cerrinea wrote:

There isn't a single administration that hasn't screwed up when it comes to terrorism. To label them corrupt is divisive and seriously undeserved.

I call them corrupt because they lied to everyone in full knowledge of the fact that what they were saying was completely fabricated. There was never a protest and no one even knew what movie they were talking about. Intelligence agencies testified to having never said anything about a movie or protest. They presented evidence of a terrorist attack less then 24 hours after the incident occurred.

To make matters worse, even while the administration's cover-up was falling apart on all the news networks, they still had the tenacity to continue with their made up story. And then during the latest debate, try to come off as insulted - as though nothing had ever happened. You tell me, how is that not corrupt?

And I don't believe your example parallels Libya. The Obama administration was warned multiple times that there would be an attack - in fact there was two bombings prior to the 9/11 embassy attack. There are even published emails in which they deny pleas for extra security.

I am not angry at the Obama administration because we were attacked. They had no control over that. I am angry because they took no preventative measures despite having been warned, and then after the decision backfired on them, they decided to lie and skirt around the issue. The circumstances and explanations surrounding the Beirut attack were completely different, and therefore not comparable. What happened in Libya is indefensible.

Quote:

If a Republican was sitting in the White House right now, and did the exact same thing as the Obama administration has done, you would not be charging them with corruption.

That is quite the assumption, and irrelevant. After-all, no matter what my response to a Republican administration would be - it does not make Obama's lies to the American people and the UN any less wrong. If a Republican had handled the situation as Obama has, and I defended him, then I would simply be wrong. Assumed hypocrisy is not an excuse to defend something that is wrong.

-

Posted: Sat Oct 20, 2012 6:57 am

Message

Darth SkuldrenModerator

Joined: 04 Feb 2008Posts: 6563Location: Missouri

Even if Obama knew without a shadow of a doubt that the Libya attack was solely a terrorist attack, and then purposely set an agenda for his people to go on and insinuate that the video was a factor and to play down the role of terrorism in the attack, I wouldn't call that corruption, even though it would technically be within the boundaries of the definition.

In my opinion, in comes off more misguided than anything. I could see Obama wanting to put a spin on the news to try to soften it. He's in full campaign mode. He's not going to want news of a terrorist attack on 9/11 happening on his watch to be plastered all across the country when he's running for re-election. He may have gotten Bin Laden, but I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of Americans would still feel safer with a different Commander in Chief.

All that said, I think it's interesting what some of the news channels are covering leading up to this next debate on foreign policy. MSNBC is focusing on Romney's lack of foreign relations experience and his reliance on former Bush advisers. They're touting him as a continuation of the Bush administration in terms of foreign policy. Whether true or not, it's a very good attack angle.

Fox news on the other hand is focusing on Libya and how Obama took two weeks for his administration to come out and say it was a terrorist attack, and how he has, in general, acted poorly on the issue.

Romney certainly doesn't have the foreign relations experience that Obama has, but then again, Obama didn't have that experience when he started the job. To criticize Romney's lack of experience (by itself, excluding the ex-Bush advisers) is to admit that Obama's lack of experience four years ago was a serious liability. Yet if you support Obama's foreign relations track record, you are in part admitting that a President with zero foreign relations experience can do a good job. Thus Mitt could do a good job even with zero foreign relations experience.

The crux of the matter is that Obama, at this point in time, has experience, and people are worried about what sort of agenda and advisers Romney would have. We have a general idea where Obama stands on foreign policy (and I'm going to get opinionated here so feel free to address this part specifically): he's an apologist, he's more open minded to our enemies than our allies, and he's timid when comes to being Commander in Chief._________________
"I believe toys resonate with us as humans, we can hold them them, it's tactile, real! They are totems for our extended beliefs and imaginations. A fetish for ideas that hold as much interest and passion as old religious relics for some. We display them in our homes. They show who we are. They are signals for similar thinking people. A way we connect with each other...and I guess thats why I do toys. That connection." -Ashley Wood

Posted: Sat Oct 20, 2012 8:56 am

Message

CerrineaMaster

Joined: 09 Jun 2009Posts: 1491

The Salt Lake Tribune, Utah's largest newspaper, just endorsed Obama for president.

Not sure if this belongs in the gender or political thread, but I will just put it here

So it turns out, when Obama tried to turn women against Romney by claiming that Planned Parenthood offered breast cancer examinations (Romney wants to end taxpayer funding for PP) - he completely lied.

"President Obama continues mislead Americans in his defense of the abortion giant Planned Parenthood. Live Action conducted an investigation last year that demonstrated that Planned Parenthood does not perform mammograms. The Department of Health and Human Services confirmed in June, in response to a Freedom of Information Act request, that not a single Planned Parenthood in the nation has mammography equipment. Planned Parenthood is spending millions to preserve its place at the taxpayer trough and re-elect the president. It's no wonder that the president used the debate as a promotion vehicle for Planned Parenthood's lies."

The Obama administration is becoming quite desperate. They talk about a 'war on women,' when they are in fact the ones being demeaning and patronizing. Its funny, when Romney was asked about what he would do for women, he responded by appealing to their work ethic and desire for employment opportunities. The Obama administration responds by talking about reproduction. Which party is truly insulting? The one that believes women care about the economy and jobs first and foremost, or the one that believes women are simply swayed by the set of reproductive organs they were born with? Lets get rid of the patronizing and anti-women Obama administration.

-

Posted: Sat Oct 20, 2012 3:27 pm

Message

CerrineaMaster

Joined: 09 Jun 2009Posts: 1491

Funny, I'm a woman and I don't feel at all demeaned or patronized by the Obama administration.

Romney, on the other hand...yeah, binders.

And just because you don't see anything wrong with the binders full of women remark, doesn't mean others aren't or shouldn't be offended by it.

But I'm probably most offended by the fact that Romney wants the right to tell me what I can and can't do with my body, and what my insurance will or won't cover.